BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the pentafecta rates between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to identify prognostic factors predicting the pentafecta for each technique. METHODS: This prospective comparative study enrolled 248 consecutive male patients 70 years of age or younger with clinically localized prostate cancer [PCa: age ≤ 70 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score ≤ 7] who were fully continent, potent, and candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing (BNS) LRP or RALP. The pentafecta rates between LRP and RALP were compared. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate independent factors for achieving pentafecta. RESULTS: In the final analysis, 91 LRP and 136 RALP patients were evaluated. The median follow-up period was 21 months for the 91 LRP patients and 18 months for the 136 RALP patients (p = 0.07). Of the 227 patients, 87 reached pentafecta [25 LRP patients (27.5 %) vs 62 RALP patients (45.6 %), p = 0.006]. Of the 140 patients who failed pentafecta, 90 (64.3 %) missed a single parameter. In these cases, erectile deficit was the leading cause of pentafecta failure, with a significant [corrected] difference between groups (80 % LRP cases that missed potency recovery [corrected] vs 53.3 % RALP, p = 0.007). Lower age, lower pathologic stage, and RALP are significantly associated with pentafecta as independent factors. For the pT3 disease, the two techniques did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Patients submitted to BNS RP have low possibilities of achieving pentafecta. Use of the robotic platform by a single surgeon significantly enhances the possibility of achieving pentafecta independently of age and pathologic stage. Potency was the most difficult outcome to reach after surgery, and it was the main factor leading to pentafecta failure. LRP and RALP provide equivalent pentafecta rates for the pT3 disease and similar "tetrafecta" outcomes when potency recovery is not included among the postoperative expectations of the patient.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the pentafecta rates between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to identify prognostic factors predicting the pentafecta for each technique. METHODS: This prospective comparative study enrolled 248 consecutive male patients 70 years of age or younger with clinically localized prostate cancer [PCa: age ≤ 70 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score ≤ 7] who were fully continent, potent, and candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing (BNS) LRP or RALP. The pentafecta rates between LRP and RALP were compared. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate independent factors for achieving pentafecta. RESULTS: In the final analysis, 91 LRP and 136 RALP patients were evaluated. The median follow-up period was 21 months for the 91 LRP patients and 18 months for the 136 RALP patients (p = 0.07). Of the 227 patients, 87 reached pentafecta [25 LRP patients (27.5 %) vs 62 RALP patients (45.6 %), p = 0.006]. Of the 140 patients who failed pentafecta, 90 (64.3 %) missed a single parameter. In these cases, erectile deficit was the leading cause of pentafecta failure, with a significant [corrected] difference between groups (80 % LRP cases that missed potency recovery [corrected] vs 53.3 % RALP, p = 0.007). Lower age, lower pathologic stage, and RALP are significantly associated with pentafecta as independent factors. For the pT3 disease, the two techniques did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS:Patients submitted to BNS RP have low possibilities of achieving pentafecta. Use of the robotic platform by a single surgeon significantly enhances the possibility of achieving pentafecta independently of age and pathologic stage. Potency was the most difficult outcome to reach after surgery, and it was the main factor leading to pentafecta failure. LRP and RALP provide equivalent pentafecta rates for the pT3 disease and similar "tetrafecta" outcomes when potency recovery is not included among the postoperative expectations of the patient.
Authors: Ashutosh Tewari; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Daniel A Bloch; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; April E Hebert; Peter Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Thomas E Ahlering; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Vipul R Patel; Henk Van der Poel; Raymond C Rosen; Ashutosh K Tewari; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffery W Saranchuk; Michael W Kattan; Elena Elkin; A Karim Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Benjamin A Spencer; Tara R McCann; James M McKiernan; Mitchell C Benson Journal: Urology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.649